4 ms·
Sidewalks are an erosion of property rights. They are a legally mandated ingress to you private property. I don't permit people to take a shortcut through my li
by patrick451 4y ago
Sidewalks are an erosion of property rights. They are a legally mandated ingress to you private property. I don't permit people to take a shortcut through my living room even if it's convenient, and I don't want them walking through my yard either. This is why I own property and do not live in a public park.
The law requires that you maintain this ingress, e.g., shoveling snow, and if you fail to so will impose large fines.
If the government wants sidewalks, they should be maintained by the city and contiguous with the street.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoHeaven forbid we each sacrifice a modest slice of property to keep pedestrians safer from cars.
- phpisthebest 4y ago[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 4y agojust comically evil god damn
- jewayne 4y agoSorry, but I can't avoid picturing you as one of the dystopian fat people in Wall-E who are so obese they've lost their ability to walk.
- snowwrestler 4y agoTechnically correct as even vehicle occupants who are injured in crashes are not, by definition, pedestrians.
- yuppie_scum 4y agoWe live in a society
- patrick451 4y agoAnd yet, I'll bet you lock your doors when you leave the house.
- jewayne 4y agoNot when I'm just walking around the block. :)
- paulryanrogers 4y agoIndeed. We pay higher taxes (or sacrifice a slice of our yards) to make our society safer yet also take personally inexpensive steps to avoid negative consequences from expensive-yet-rare events. There is no contradiction here. It's defense in depth, balanced against the costs and inconvenience.
- patrick451 4y agoYou want to turn my yard into a public park, just because your feel entitled to it. But you don't want strangers traipsing through your living room, even if they might find it convenient. That's the contradiction.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoNo one is asking to walk through anyone's living room. Rather we/they are asking for a sliver of property (3-4ft wide) for public safety. If your property is no deeper then I doubt you have space for a living room regardless. As to feeling entitled, you are the one who presumes to have absolute power over property which you cannot hold for more than a lifetime. Yet you want all the benefits of sacrifices made by others: wide roads and sprawling towns/cities built for primarily for cars, others to walk in more dangerous places to maintain some tiny expansion of exclusive space, and the usual affordances other (often unwilling) people's taxes pay for such as police and fire departments and schools.
- scarby2 4y ago> If the government wants sidewalks, they should be maintained by the city and contiguous with the street. I'm not sure why this isn't the case everywhere. We all want sidewalks, they are a public space and a public good, they should be maintained from the public purse (as are the roads)
- phpisthebest 4y ago>>We all want sidewalks Clearly we all do not, I do not. I never use them, I do not want to pay for them, I do not want my tax money to pay for them
- GalenErso 4y agoI want sidewalks. I use them. I want to pay for them. I want my (and your) tax money to pay for them. And I vote.
- patrick451 4y ago"I want you to buy me stuff" is such a childish argument.
- jewayne 4y agoThere's nothing childish about wanting your neighborhood and city to be livable.
- patrick451 4y agoNeighborhoods without sidewalks are perfectly livable, evidenced by the many people currently living there. Try again.
- phpisthebest 4y agoAnd you believe it is ethical to use threats of violence to force me to pay for those Sidewalks Because that is what voting for it does. All government actions are backed by the threat of violence if you do not comply
- moistly 4y agoWell, then, enjoy paying much higher taxes!